On December 3, the 5th circuit heard oral arguments in Libertarian Party v Dardenne, the case over whether the Louisiana Secretary of State should have accepted the party’s presidential elector paperwork last year. The statutory deadline was September 2, but the Republican Party missed that deadline, not because of any hurricane, but because the party was unable to fill out the paperwork until the national convention had nominated John McCain and Sarah Palin, which was done on September 4. There is a factual dispute as to whether the Republicans submitted the paperwork on September 5 or September 8.
The Secretary of State extended the deadline through September 8, but the Libertarian paperwork wasn’t submitted until September 10. The Governor had issued a proclamation easing deadlines until September 12, but the Secretary of State does not agree that the gubernatorial proclamation relates to this type of deadline.
At the hearing, Judge Catherine Haynes (a Bush, Jr. appointee) seemed scornful of the Libertarian Party’s arguments, but Judge James Dennis (a Clinton appointee) asked questions that seemed supportive. Judge Carl Stewart, the third judge, did not ask any questions. Anyone can hear the 30 minute oral argument by going to the 5th circuit’s webpage here. Choose “Libertarian Party v Dardenne”.
If there are any disputed facts, precedent demands that a plaintiff must be granted a trial. There has not yet been a trial in this case. The attorney for the state made much out of the fact that Gloria LaRiva was able to file her presidential elector paperwork in person on September 2. However, LaRiva has told Richard Winger that on that day, the entire office building which houses the Secretary of State’s office was dark, as though the electricity was off. No building personnel were on duty in the lobby. The building appeared deserted. But, the doors weren’t locked. She made her way upstairs and found that someone was available to receive her paperwork.
At the oral argument, the attorney for the Libertarian Party said that when elections officials are confronted with instances at which the major parties were late with presidential elector paperwork, they always excuse the error. He did not list specific instances. However, it is well-documented in court decisions that either the Republicans, or the Democrats, or both, were late in Texas in 2008, and in Indiana in 1988, and in Iowa in 1964. There are probably other instances, such as Florida 2000, but they are not entirely documented.
The MORON bureaucrats can NOT even put a time stamp on the paperwork they get — when ALL election law stuff has a time component ???
Texas law requires that ballot qualified parties that are required to hold primaries, must hold a presidential primary for the purpose of electing a substantial share of delegates to the national party convention. If they don’t hold a presidential primary, and implicitly participate in the national convention, they forfeit the right to place a candidate on the ballot.
It would be a severe burden on the right of political association to prevent a Texas political party from affiliating with a national political party simply because the national party holds its election at a “late” date.
Further, the deadline had been moved earlier in order to accommodate the recommended best practice for sending ballots to overseas and military voters (this recommended best practice was recently codified into federal law).
As it turned out that the deadline needn’t have been set so early so as to accommodate the next step, which was for the Secretary of State to certify candidate lists to county election officials, who must in turn prepare and print ballots. The deadline was shifted to a later date during the 2009 legislative session.
If Texas had attempted to enforce the deadline, they would have lost the legal case faster than you can say Anderson v. Celebrezze.